Won’t the proposed project help clean up Malibu Surfrider Beach, which has been known for years to be polluted?

No. The pollution that can be a problem for swimmers and surfers is caused by upstream sources which must be dealt with upstream. Projects being implemented that are far more effective at cleaning up water runoff, include the new Legacy Park storm water collection site. The habitat in the lagoon, including plants which would be ripped out actually help to clean the water.

The Final Alternatives Analysis, dated March 2005, included this statement in the Executive Summary: “Solving the habitat and water quality problems at the lagoon is not entirely possible without major improvements to the quality and/or quantity of incoming surface water and groundwater.”

Didn’t the stakeholder groups of the Malibu Lagoon Task Force and Malibu Watershed Council participate in putting this proposal together?

The Malibu Lagoon Task Force and Malibu Watershed Council never voted on this proposed plan. They agreed by consensus that the parking lot could be moved. They also agreed to replace non-native plants with natives. What these groups never agreed to was a mechanized bulldozing and wholesale removal of most of the lagoon’s rich soils and plant and animal life.

If this project is not approved now, will the bond money be lost?

The bond money can be used for other more worthy and ecologically sound projects. In fact, the UCLA study that kicked off the process for restoration of Malibu Lagoon concluded:

“The acquisition of potentially restorable land should be the highest priority for restoration and the first step in restoring the Malibu Lagoon ecosystem”

and

“The principle of giving highest priority to the acquisition of land before it is developed has been adopted by the Scientific Advisory Panel for the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project, a consortium of state and federal agencies concerned with wetland restoration in Southern California.”

Won’t the animals at Malibu Lagoon be okay because the habitat will be better afterwards?

Anyone who believes this inaccurate conclusion does not understand habitat. The animals need the cover of the vegetation that the bulldozers will remove for protection from predators. They also need the food that is in the marsh and other parts of the ecosystem that will be ripped apart. The lagoon’s equilibrium, which evolved after nearly 30 years of non-disturbance, has created a very rich, complex, ecosystem. After the dredging, bulldozing, and “recontouring,” many of the plants and animals will be gone forever. Some birds can come back, but only after food sources have had a chance to recover. Mammals, lizards, frogs, insects are not as predictable. Many could be lost forever.

Won’t the animals be rescued and “herded” to a safe place before the bulldozers arrive?

A complete disregard for the needs of these species is found in the suggestion that these animals will be rescued or herded to safety. There is no way to avoid killing and harming a great deal of the plant and animal life if this project proceeds.

Aren’t those opposing the project in opposition to everything?

No. In fact, some of those who have been most vocal against the project have experience standing up to a similar proposal that was planned for the Ballona Wetlands’ Grand Canal Lagoon in Los Angeles. While the Coastal Commission approved dredging there, a Superior Court Judge ruled against the Coastal Commission and the City of Los Angeles. He halted the project with a temporary restraining order, issued a preliminary injunction and finally ruled that the proposal was illegal.

A more environmentally sensitive project has now been in the works, and the ecosystem is thriving with the community vitally involved. Malibu Lagoon could be the recipient of the same sort of community-engaged restoration: one that is respectful of nature.

Aren’t the opponents just the rich people who live in the Malibu Colony and who don’t want the public to be walking near their homes?

Some of the opponents do include Malibu Colony residents, but most of these local residents are opposed to the project because they know and love this quiet lagoon so intimately. Members of the public have walked along the path near their homes for years without complaints.

Opponents of the project include many people who do not live in Malibu (coming from as far away as Whittier, Long Beach, La Canada Flintridge, Huntington Beach, San Fernando Valley and Pasadena.) Also opposed to the project are environmental groups, surfers, bird watchers, and animal protection groups.

Didn’t a panel of distinguished scientists conceive of and approve this plan?

A number of the people on the scientific panel that was created for the Malibu Lagoon proposal did not attend more than one or two meetings. In addition, the public was not allowed to attend these meetings, so it is unclear who really championed the plan. After complaints about the closed-nature of the decision-making process by stakeholders on the Malibu Lagoon Task Force, two stakeholders were allowed to attend one meeting toward the end of the process; they were not allowed to talk or provide feedback.

There also are distinguished scientists who think this project is not ecologically sound. And, the scientists who ultimately backed this proposal did admit that the best thing for restoration would be to acquire more land and restore it first. (see above).

Isn’t the project going to help correct mistakes that were done in the 1983 restoration? The lagoon was filled in with baseball fields prior to that.

First, it is an overstatement that the entire western marsh (where the project is planned) was covered with baseball fields. There was one field for awhile, and then another was added. They were located where the current parking lot is located, so the marsh area was never “covered with ballfields.”

Yes, there was a restoration in 1983. And while some people think there were mistakes made then, 27 years of equilibrium means the habitat is functioning just fine for many, many species of birds, fish, insects, mammals, lizards and frogs. In fact, perhaps the most important species in the lagoon, the Tidewater Goby, is thriving. Dowe want to risk losing an endangered species population?

Malibu Lagoon is not a science experiment site, but an ecosystem that has been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) by the California Coastal Commission.

Aren’t there fish die-offs in Malibu Lagoon that this project would prevent?

For the most part, fish in Malibu Lagoon have been observed and documented as being quite healthy. Toward the end of summer, 2010, naturalists reported observing millions of fish swimming near the three-bridge trail.

In fact, the 2000 UCLA report by Richard Ambrose and Antony Orme, which the proposed project is based on, states:

“We have no well-documented records of extensive fish kills in Malibu Lagoon…..widespread fish kills were not observed.”